New Ice Age begins

[westwall]

Not only that, those of us that live in areas where we can see the mountain glaciers on a daily basis, just might notice if they reversed the present decline.

Your comment reminds me of sheep. When I was skiing in New Zealand as a young man we would drive along the roads and bark like a dog and the pack of sheep would run over the hill where we would arrive having followed the road around said hill and bark again and the sheep would reverse direction and run back over the hill to their original starting point. Quite humerous.

You climate ninnys are the same. In the 1970's the world was going to end in ice. Then it warmed and the same climate ninnys are now saying it will end in fire. Now the world is entering into another cooling phase and in a few years you'll all be whinng about the next ice age unless we do something about it.

What I find truly amusing is the constant barrage of media pundits parroting the climatologists who are saying, "well we told you that the GW would end winters as we know them and there would no longer be snow in the winter and gosh golly the children will be so sad that they will never get to see what snow is, but, actually, we rrrreeeeeaally meant to say that the GW would coooooooll the Earth so that it will get really snowy and it will still take 100,000 years for us to fix the damage we have allready caused........yeah, that's the ticket!

These dipshits couldn't find their ass with both hands.

 

[westwall]

Hey West.........check this vid out. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BZcp_wcDXec&feature=player_embedded#!

Its members of the IPCC who resigned because they state that the science "consesnsus" is bogus........and theres even a former Greenpeace big who says that arctic ice disipation is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay overexagerated.....and that the only ting the IPCC reports is the bad stuff and none of the stuff which would support the skeptic viewpoint.

How convenient............

I am very familiar with John's work. He does a good job.

 

[skookerasbil]

Oh ps...........another kick in the balls for the k00ks comes today from the UK

Big freeze: Coldest December for 100 years brings travel chaos as holiday rush begins | Mail Online



OK.........I admit..........I come on here just to kick Old Rocks in the balls..............

 

[mdn2000]

Its official, this is the beginning of the New Ice Age, not because of this latest, deadly, freeze, but we know its the new ice age because Chris has been unable to find a record high temperature to post in over a week.

Snow storm bears down on Mid-Atlantic, Northeast

Snow storm bears down on Mid-Atlantic, Northeast

Early Sunday, winter storm warnings stretched from Georgia through New England.

The white Christmas in the South was one for the record books. Columbia, S.C., had its first significant Christmas snow since weather records were first kept in 1887. Atlanta had just over an inch of snow—the first measurable accumulation on Christmas Day since the 1880s.

 

[mdn2000]

HAMweather.com :: biosphere Blog Archive Atlanta Snow in March… WHAT?

Atlanta Snow in March… WHAT?
Hello and happy Tuesday everyone. Big weather story today coming out of Atlanta where as much as 3.0″ was reported in the northern part of Georgia earlier today. Here are a few of the reports:

GEORGIA

...HABERSHAM COUNTY...
CLARKESVILLE 3.0 1100 AM 3/2
MOUNT AIRY 2.0 1010 AM 3/2 HEAVY SNOW

...STEPHENS COUNTY...
TOCCOA 1.5 1044 AM 3/2 HEAVY SNOW
Please Stop Snowing…

I guess people in the city of Atlanta have had enough, what do you think?

 

[mdn2000]

I am seeing reports of the first snow in Atalanta as well but the link above seems to state this cant be true because last March they had snow. I guess the Ice Age began earlier than I thought.

 

[westwall]

Its official, this is the beginning of the New Ice Age, not because of this latest, deadly, freeze, but we know its the new ice age because Chris has been unable to find a record high temperature to post in over a week.

Snow storm bears down on Mid-Atlantic, Northeast

Snow storm bears down on Mid-Atlantic, Northeast

Early Sunday, winter storm warnings stretched from Georgia through New England.

The white Christmas in the South was one for the record books. Columbia, S.C., had its first significant Christmas snow since weather records were first kept in 1887. Atlanta had just over an inch of snow—the first measurable accumulation on Christmas Day since the 1880s.

 

[skookerasbil]

West bro........I got a three foot snow drift up my front door as we speak. Minus 5 degrees w/wind chill..............I'll be shoveling for hours later.

Maybe the AGW crusaders want to come help me out????

Ask people who live in the Atlantic coast today what they think about global warming!!!!

You're gonna get alot of "FCUCCK YOU"S!!!!

 

[westwall]

West bro........I got a three foot snow drift up my front door as we speak. Minus 5 degrees w/wind chill..............I'll be shoveling for hours later.

Maybe the AGW crusaders want to come help me out????

Ask people who live in the Atlantic coast today what they think about global warming!!!!

You're gonna get alot of "FCUCCK YOU"S!!!!

Three feet? Dude you're a piker! We've had 25 feet! of snow up here!

 

[mdn2000]

It sucks here in Rio, its about 15 degrees colder than normal, about 85 f.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Ice ages are times of great pain as happen in the little ice age from 1300 to 1800. This planet can't support 7 billion humans if it occurs. Not even close. Yes solar output is going down, which is a sign of a natural negative forcing. So this is not totally baseless...The question does it over power what ever that is helping to warm the planet? This maybe the one thing that people like Hansen never thought of...Being that he and most of the ipcc must of assumed that the solar output would remain the same, but now it is going down. Maybe the reason for the flatting of the upward trend the last 10 years. And warming being slower then the co2 rising...Decoupling from each other through a negative forcing.

I've read some things that do point towards a ice age cycle near by, but with the two forces clashing with each other, what one wins?

 

[westwall]

Ice ages are times of great pain as happen in the little ice age from 1300 to 1800. This planet can't support 7 billion humans if it occurs. Not even close. Yes solar output is going down, which is a sign of a natural negative forcing. So this is not totally baseless...The question does it over power what ever that is helping to warm the planet? This maybe the one thing that people like Hansen never thought of...Being that he and most of the ipcc must of assumed that the solar output would remain the same, but now it is going down. Maybe the reason for the flatting of the upward trend the last 10 years. And warming being slower then the co2 rising...Decoupling from each other through a negative forcing.

I've read some things that do point towards a ice age cycle near by, but with the two forces clashing with each other, what one wins?

Yes the planet can. We have technology that the denizens of the medieval world could only dream about. Couple that with the fact that the whole globe is available to us for food production and it really is not a problem. Worry about the problems we can actually have an impact on.

Fisheries are being overtaxed. Whales are being killed unneccessarily. Pollution of all types can and must be halted and the effects reversed. Fix those things. The rainforests are being cut down needlessly.
Worrying about the climate is a pointless exercise in futility.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Ice ages are times of great pain as happen in the little ice age from 1300 to 1800. This planet can't support 7 billion humans if it occurs. Not even close. Yes solar output is going down, which is a sign of a natural negative forcing. So this is not totally baseless...The question does it over power what ever that is helping to warm the planet? This maybe the one thing that people like Hansen never thought of...Being that he and most of the ipcc must of assumed that the solar output would remain the same, but now it is going down. Maybe the reason for the flatting of the upward trend the last 10 years. And warming being slower then the co2 rising...Decoupling from each other through a negative forcing.

I've read some things that do point towards a ice age cycle near by, but with the two forces clashing with each other, what one wins?

Yes the planet can. We have technology that the denizens of the medieval world could only dream about. Couple that with the fact that the whole globe is available to us for food production and it really is not a problem. Worry about the problems we can actually have an impact on.

Fisheries are being overtaxed. Whales are being killed unneccessarily. Pollution of all types can and must be halted and the effects reversed. Fix those things. Worrying about the climate is a pointless exercise in futility.
The rainforests are being cut down needlessly.

I agree...Lets enjoy and watch the climate and weather and not threat over something we can't do anything to change.

 

[newpolitics]

Not only that, those of us that live in areas where we can see the mountain glaciers on a daily basis, just might notice if they reversed the present decline.

Your comment reminds me of sheep. When I was skiing in New Zealand as a young man we would drive along the roads and bark like a dog and the pack of sheep would run over the hill where we would arrive having followed the road around said hill and bark again and the sheep would reverse direction and run back over the hill to their original starting point. Quite humerous.

You climate ninnys are the same. In the 1970's the world was going to end in ice. Then it warmed and the same climate ninnys are now saying it will end in fire. Now the world is entering into another cooling phase and in a few years you'll all be whinng about the next ice age unless we do something about it.

What I find truly amusing is the constant barrage of media pundits parroting the climatologists who are saying, "well we told you that the GW would end winters as we know them and there would no longer be snow in the winter and gosh golly the children will be so sad that they will never get to see what snow is, but, actually, we rrrreeeeeaally meant to say that the GW would coooooooll the Earth so that it will get really snowy and it will still take 100,000 years for us to fix the damage we have allready caused........yeah, that's the ticket!

These dipshits couldn't find their ass with both hands.

As new data emerges from new findings and better technology which allows us to attain more accurate information over decades, you'd have to be an idiot, in any situation, to not adjust your opinions and views in light of new evidence. To think someone is a sheep because simply, from the outside, they appear to be going 'to and fro' is a very ignorant of looking at things, because you are not appreciating the evolution of information that spawns such shifts in views, in my opinion anyway. To stick to your guns simply to stick to your guns, even as new information suggests that your position might be outdated, is ignorant and stubborn.

 

[westwall]

Not only that, those of us that live in areas where we can see the mountain glaciers on a daily basis, just might notice if they reversed the present decline.

Your comment reminds me of sheep. When I was skiing in New Zealand as a young man we would drive along the roads and bark like a dog and the pack of sheep would run over the hill where we would arrive having followed the road around said hill and bark again and the sheep would reverse direction and run back over the hill to their original starting point. Quite humerous.

You climate ninnys are the same. In the 1970's the world was going to end in ice. Then it warmed and the same climate ninnys are now saying it will end in fire. Now the world is entering into another cooling phase and in a few years you'll all be whinng about the next ice age unless we do something about it.

What I find truly amusing is the constant barrage of media pundits parroting the climatologists who are saying, "well we told you that the GW would end winters as we know them and there would no longer be snow in the winter and gosh golly the children will be so sad that they will never get to see what snow is, but, actually, we rrrreeeeeaally meant to say that the GW would coooooooll the Earth so that it will get really snowy and it will still take 100,000 years for us to fix the damage we have allready caused........yeah, that's the ticket!

These dipshits couldn't find their ass with both hands.

As new data emerges from new findings and better technology which allows us to attain more accurate information over decades, you'd have to be an idiot, in any situation, to not adjust your opinions and views in light of new evidence. To think someone is a sheep because simply, from the outside, they appear to be going 'to and fro' is a very ignorant of looking at things, because you are not appreciating the evolution of information that spawns such shifts in views, in my opinion anyway. To stick to your guns simply to stick to your guns, even as new information suggests that your position might be outdated, is ignorant and stubborn.

What new evidence do you speak of praytell? The evidence that the AGW alarmists have been falsifying their data for almost 5 years and manipulating it before that? That's new info. Or how about the info that the climate fraud seems to be run by big oil and companies like Goldman Sachs who stand to make trillions off of a theory that to date has no empirical data to back it up? Or the well known fact that not a single computer model, of which the alarmists are so proud, can recreate the weather that occured 5 days ago?

Please, by all means let us know what new information is out there that will actually be relevent to the discussion.

 

[ScienceRocks]

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/pdf/TAR-03.PDF

I've never seen co2 charts that support anything besides which are in this link. So I don't understand how any one would come to the belief that the level is not unnormal. Really what data is there for co2 as high as today in the last million years?

 

[newpolitics]

Your comment reminds me of sheep. When I was skiing in New Zealand as a young man we would drive along the roads and bark like a dog and the pack of sheep would run over the hill where we would arrive having followed the road around said hill and bark again and the sheep would reverse direction and run back over the hill to their original starting point. Quite humerous.

You climate ninnys are the same. In the 1970's the world was going to end in ice. Then it warmed and the same climate ninnys are now saying it will end in fire. Now the world is entering into another cooling phase and in a few years you'll all be whinng about the next ice age unless we do something about it.

What I find truly amusing is the constant barrage of media pundits parroting the climatologists who are saying, "well we told you that the GW would end winters as we know them and there would no longer be snow in the winter and gosh golly the children will be so sad that they will never get to see what snow is, but, actually, we rrrreeeeeaally meant to say that the GW would coooooooll the Earth so that it will get really snowy and it will still take 100,000 years for us to fix the damage we have allready caused........yeah, that's the ticket!

These dipshits couldn't find their ass with both hands.

As new data emerges from new findings and better technology which allows us to attain more accurate information over decades, you'd have to be an idiot, in any situation, to not adjust your opinions and views in light of new evidence. To think someone is a sheep because simply, from the outside, they appear to be going 'to and fro' is a very ignorant of looking at things, because you are not appreciating the evolution of information that spawns such shifts in views, in my opinion anyway. To stick to your guns simply to stick to your guns, even as new information suggests that your position might be outdated, is ignorant and stubborn.

What new evidence do you speak of praytell? The evidence that the AGW alarmists have been falsifying their data for almost 5 years and manipulating it before that? That's new info. Or how about the info that the climate fraud seems to be run by big oil and companies like Goldman Sachs who stand to make trillions off of a theory that to date has no empirical data to back it up? Or the well known fact that not a single computer model, of which the alarmists are so proud, can recreate the weather that occured 5 days ago?

Please, by all means let us know what new information is out there that will actually be relevent to the discussion.

I was speaking more in terms of generalities, that one must remain flexible in light of new information, experiences, etc... That, remaining steadfast seems to be considered virtuous in politics, even when it is not prudent. Since climate change has become political, I would consider what I said relevant to this discussion.

I just have one question: what motive would people have to be alarmist about climate change? Why would they feign this? It would seem that oil companies and many corporations don't want change because their success is built on a stable foundation, one built on an oil-fueled economy. To change the fundamental energy structure of our economy would restructure everything. That kind of systemic change is why no one wants to confront global warming, and people warp their thinking to convince themselver it is not true so they can continue to make money. The evidence is clear. global warming is happening, yet it is too much of a threat to businesses and those who hold stake in the infrastructure of the current economy. Greed will warp minds.

 

[Old Rocks]

OK, I have made this prediction before, but I will repeat it. For 2010 to 2020, for the first five years, we will see two that exceed 1998, 2005, and 2010. Clearly exceed, not close too. Then, as the emissions from the Arctic Ocean clathrates and the Siberian and North American permafrost kick in, a faster rate of warming. Many of the scientists at the Royal Society conferance on warming see a 4+C warming by 2060. That is well in the realm of possibility. Provided that the climate does not respond to a lesser warming in such a way that the emissions decrease dramtically involuntarily.

 

[mdn2000]

OK, I have made this prediction before, but I will repeat it. For 2010 to 2020, for the first five years, we will see two that exceed 1998, 2005, and 2010. Clearly exceed, not close too. Then, as the emissions from the Arctic Ocean clathrates and the Siberian and North American permafrost kick in, a faster rate of warming. Many of the scientists at the Royal Society conferance on warming see a 4+C warming by 2060. That is well in the realm of possibility. Provided that the climate does not respond to a lesser warming in such a way that the emissions decrease dramtically involuntarily.

in such a way that the emissions decrease dramtically involuntarily.

I see why you link so much Old Crock. So tell us, emissions may decrease, "involuntarily", that is, against there will, fascinating, tell us more about the voluntary and involuntary will of emissions.

 

[mdn2000]

Not only that, those of us that live in areas where we can see the mountain glaciers on a daily basis, just might notice if they reversed the present decline.

Your comment reminds me of sheep. When I was skiing in New Zealand as a young man we would drive along the roads and bark like a dog and the pack of sheep would run over the hill where we would arrive having followed the road around said hill and bark again and the sheep would reverse direction and run back over the hill to their original starting point. Quite humerous.

You climate ninnys are the same. In the 1970's the world was going to end in ice. Then it warmed and the same climate ninnys are now saying it will end in fire. Now the world is entering into another cooling phase and in a few years you'll all be whinng about the next ice age unless we do something about it.

What I find truly amusing is the constant barrage of media pundits parroting the climatologists who are saying, "well we told you that the GW would end winters as we know them and there would no longer be snow in the winter and gosh golly the children will be so sad that they will never get to see what snow is, but, actually, we rrrreeeeeaally meant to say that the GW would coooooooll the Earth so that it will get really snowy and it will still take 100,000 years for us to fix the damage we have allready caused........yeah, that's the ticket!

These dipshits couldn't find their ass with both hands.

Careful there, your talking about sheep, your going to make Old Crock forget which message board he is posting on.